Why not legalize prostitution?

Originally Posted by killerpineapple

At it's worst, sex can be forced upon people against their will.

There are a lot of things in the world which are basically good when practiced by consenting adults, and yet are extremely bad when forced on people against their will. I say we make a nice big list so that we can completely ban all of them. It's the only way to safeguard society from such terrible acts. I'm going to start my list with religion.

Originally Posted by killerpineapple

Ouch. You asked me a question. I'm sorry you don't like the answer.

It is called a discussion. You say something, someone else says something. You respond to things other people have said and they in return respond to things you've said. It's standard operating procedure for an internet forum. Why does it seem like you're taking offense to the idea that someone might want to respond to you? You must have come into this thread knowing that for this community your responses would be controversial.

Quote:

I don't blame sex for anything. I'm not sure what you mean by that, but it doesn't make any sense to me either. I do think sex can be misused by people in a way that it harmful to people, but that's much different than 'blaming sex'.

Lets make a list of things that can't be misused in a way which is harmful to people. I think I have room on the back of this postage stamp. The contents of the average kitchen, garage or workshop can be put to use in a way which can potentially cause far more harm than is possible to inflict using sex, and to a greater number of people simultaneously.

Quote:

I'm sorry, I didn't know you were looking for other types of examples. It's a bit unfair of you to get upset about it when the burden really wasn't on me to second guess you like that.

Your examples don't really support your argument. Each example you have given is a result of the sexual act, but almost anything you do can result in unpleasant consequences if you don't take the appropriate precautions. You won't get a sexually transmitted disease if you take precautions and make every effort to sleep with a clean partner. A woman will not get pregant if some form of birth control is used. If you fail to take these precautions, you know you do so at your own risk.

Since you are a Christian, I'd like to ask you as nicely as I know how if we can avoid the whole discussion on birth control? I mentioned it as part of an argument absent any discussion of the morality of the practice. I personally would really appreciate not getting into that one, and it's off-topic for the thread anyway.

As for adultery or cheating outside of marriage, I don't see any meaningful difference between that and any other kind of dishonest and hurtful behaviour in a relationship. Sex does not have to be involved, there are all kinds of ways for human beings to betray each other. It's never just the physical act that was the big deal, it's always the feeling of loss of trust and of betrayal as well. That can happen either with or without sex.

Quote:

Hmm, how about the teenager who feels compelled to seek out destructive and frequent sexual relationships because of exposure to sexual and physical abuse at home?

Oh I don't know... maybe blame that on the abuse? I don't see why sexual abuse should be considered different than other kinds of physical abuse from a moral standpoint. It might be more emotionally damaging to the victim, but as far as I'm concerned, any kind of physical abuse is wrong, it's not a matter of degrees.

Once again... this can happen with or without sex. What you seem to be saying here is that a lot of people are cruel. I can't argue with that, and woul not wish to. Where I think you are mistaken is in assuming that sex is somehow related to this cruelty simply because it is often the 'weapon' of choice. I'm asking you to consider the possibility that it is but a means to an end for cruel people, and that these things are not directly related to sex itself.

If you misuse a car, you may use it as a weapon by crashing it, potentially harming many people. If you misuse a knife, you may harm others by using it as a weapon. If you misuse household chemicals you may harm many other people by creating a crude explosive device. If you misuse a computer (or for that matter, a pen and paper) you may hurt the feelings of others by writing unkind things.

Almost anyhing can be used to cause emotion distress or physical harm. Try to find something that has no potential for such abuse. It's harder than you might think.

Quote:

An alarming number of people in legal sexual industries such as erotic dancing and pornography were the victims of sexual abuse.

Please provide evidence to support this assertion, or there is no point in using it as the basis for your argument.

Since I have made that request of you it is only fair that I point out that what I have posted is only my own opinions.

Quote:

I didn't even come close to expressing that as an absolute. I maintain that the spread of STDs and the increase in unwanted children being born has everything to do with people having sex irresponsibly.

I can agree with this, but I'm not sure you realise what you've written. The most you have done here is to make a case for people to have sex in a more responsible manner. I agree with you entirely on that, but I think we differ greatly on the definition of responsible sex. My perspective is necessarily different from yours. I am not a promiscuous man, but I have had sexual relationships which did not involve marriage. In fact I do not think I shall ever get married, even if I stay with my current partner for the rest of my life. It just doesn't seem like the sort of thing we would do.

Quote:

Honestly? Yes, I think it would benefit society in general if promiscuity wasn't accepted or practiced.

I would advise you to not hold your breath while waiting. I also find it noteworthy that you believe that there can be no such thing as 'responsible promiscuity'. I don't see what is irresponsible about practicing promiscuity as long as the appropriate precautions have been taken by both parties. I am aware that those precautions are often neglected, but I believe there is a better chance of pursuading people to take them than of persuading them to not have sex.

Quote:

Yes, I completely agree that encouraging abstinence is an excellent way to go. I still think people need to learn about safe sex as well.

I agree entirely with Sproutacus' response to this particular statement. I firmly believe that advocating abstinence is pointless in most cases. I don't doubt that there will be a few who will choose to abstain from sex before marriage, but statistics have shown that they are in the minority. I just don't see how you could pursuade these teenagers to abstain from sex. The risk of causing unwanted pregnancies did not apparently deter them, and I would find it hard to believe they did not know that was a possibility.

Originally Posted by killerpineapple

Can someone else yell at me please?.

In this one specific instance, your wish is my command.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by killerpineapple

It is indeed a free country. Nevertheless, laws do exist that regulate morality.

Please name one. I'm genuinely curious to see what you think kind of law you'd cite as an example of this. I'm going through a list of what I imagine you might say, and I can think of good counter-arguments for most of them. Not all, but most. Obviously there's a chance you might have thought of something I didn't

I want to follow that particular line of debate to see where it leads. I've had this discussion before, and as such I don't believe that morality is legislated to any great extent in America. I believe that attempts have been made to do so, but they have largely been defeated. I think that you're looking at some of the things that the law does protect and seeing "morality" when really it's something else that has the protection of the law.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by killerpineapple

Tell me if I'm understanding you correctly or not about that.

Since Denicalis obviously has this one, is it OK if I just cede the floor to him? He's much better at this kind of thing than I am. The point I'd like to make is that those laws don't legislate morality for the most part. They legislate the protection of minors, infringing on the rights of others, and things like that. You're mistaking those laws for legislated morality because they happen to be compatible with your idea of morality, but that's not entirely an accurate view.

I'll leave it to Deni from now because I know he can pull this off better than I can.

Quote:

warning: don't try to 2nd guess me on the gay marriage issue

I want to ask, but it would derail the thread. The only reason you could have for posting that is because you feel your view is not the same as that of the stereotypical Christian, which means...

Damn. I don't want to drag the thread off-topic.

Quote:

Some people want the right to be able to fudge up their life. I'd rather they didn't have those opportunities.

Your idea of improving society is to curtail the rights of the individual. Maybe you'll live to see the day when society is improved so much that some rights you care about are the ones that the "morally superior" are interested in taking from you.

Should that day come, I hope that somehow you are reminded of this thread.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by Denicalis

You realise that right now, you're the guy ruining it for the rest of them.

I suppose he assumes that he looks pretty good when compared with LordsSword, but honestly... I'm not sure just how great the differences are.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by killerpineapple

Perhaps another point of disagreement... Are laws that forbid racial or sexual discrimination moral in nature?

No. They are based on rights. There's no room to disagree here, if you disagree you're wrong. The facts support me when I say that these laws are based exclusively on the principle of safeguarding rights. Morals just don't come in to it. It's not illegal to discrimate against black people because that would be wrong. It's illegal because the constitution states that we all have equal rights.

You can get a bunch of people together in your house and discuss how much you hate black people all night if you want. What you can't do is infringe on any of a black person's rights. There are a whole bunch of legally protected ways to be a racist if you wish to do so. Your right to be as racist as you wish to be is protected by the Bill of Rights.

Excuse my use of the term "we" when I am not an American.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by packrat

Thats both arrogant and dishonest.

I'll admit to arrogance in that instance, since I'm certain that the facts back my position. I won't admit to dishonesty, because I meant what I wote

Quote:

You're arguing that the letter of the law is the spirit of the law. You're stating that the legal application of "rights" is the be-all-end-all. Perhaps legally speaking, yes you are correct.

I'm speaking legally, since we are discussing the law. KP's application of a wider context is nothing but a smokescreen to justify taking the rights of free men. It's precisely the same kind of absurd truthiness that the governments have been forcefeeding British and Americans for years now.

The law takes no moral position. It is nowhere stated that racial discrimination is wrong, or that racism is wrong. It is stated that racial discrimination is prohibited because the priniciples of a free society state that we may excercise our freedoms only in so far as they do not infringe on the freedom of others. That's all. If the principles of law were intended to serve morality, then racism itself would be prohibited, as would many other things which currently are not.

If you think I'm wrong, that does not trouble me. If you think I'm being dishonest about my views, that would bother me a lot.

Originally Posted by packrat

Lets put it this way. Jim Crow laws weren't violations of legal rights until the greater public, and by extension the courts, felt that it was morally abhorrent, and in turn legally unacceptable.

Not true. The Jim Crow laws were always in violation of the basic rights with which all men are endowed. All men are considered equal, it says so right there in the constitution. The Jim Crow laws were an obvious violation of the constitution.

Quote:

I just can't sit around and tolerate that farce of a statement to stand.

I'm sorry that you feel that way, but lets see what you think of my response.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by killerpineapple

I would say that racial discrimination is a moral issue but it turns out that if I do I'm wrong.

That's not what I said at all. I said that if you think that the law is based on moral principles, you'd be wrong. The facts don't support that conclusion, no matter how arrogant some people might find it of me to say that. The facts support the conclusion that the law is intended to safeguard the equal rights with which all men (and women) are endowed. The whole of American law from the constitution up takes this tone.

Of course racial discrimination is a moral issue to you. You're not wrong, it's a moral issue to a lot of people, but that's not what the law is based on. It just so happens that the protection of the rights of the individual serves what you see as a moral end. A lot of laws designed to protect our rights also serve a moral end, even though they aren't based on any moral principle. How hard is it to understand?

Protecting your rights as an individual stops people from doing to you a lot of things that you would consider immoral. It does so because they don't have the right to limit your freedom by killing you, stealing your property, and discriminating against you based on race, gender, and oh... religious beliefs.

The principle of law is very simple. No person may excercise his rights where such excercise would necessarily infringe upon the free excercise of the rights of another. It's the basis for most of the oldest parts of the law.

Quote:

Some people, lots of them in fact, don't want the government limiting their rights to choose who they can hire, or let in a restaurant, or admit into a school.

I think I covered this already. They didn't start out with the right to limit the free excercise of the rights of another person. That's not something that's been taken from them, its's something they never had. Just like nobody has the right to prevent you from being a Christian.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by killerpineapple

Thanks for explaining your position more clearly Soluzar. I still disagree with you, I think. Brain hurting. 3..2..1...Begin babbling rant:

That's because you don't understand the nature of the position correctly. You see, we're not arguing fundamental concepts. We're arguing the modern American legal system, and it's really based on relatively simple concepts

Quote:

In nature there are no laws. That is real freedom. It's a true paradox that laws are required to ensure freedom for us humans.

Wrong. That's only "real freedom" for some people. The strong are "free" to take advantage of the weak, and to curtail the freedom of anyone less able than themselves. To ensure the maximum amount of "real freedom" for everyone is what requires a law, and I fail to see the paradox.

Quote:

There's something innate within a person that let's us know what is right on wrong. With some fundamental issues there is no disagreement. We tend not to even think of those basic concepts of right and wrong as morals. Well, except people like me. I still tend to equate knowing right from wrong with morals.

These laws have nothing to do with right and wrong though. They don't tell you what's wrong. They just enforce equal freedom to excercise your rights for everyone. They don't even do that because it's right to do that. They do that because it's in the constitution.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

You realise this thread has been dead for over half a year and the original member who posted it has been banned to never return.

Jam it back in, in the dark.